JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the order dated 31-3-1981 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Vo. 2, Hanumangarh, whereby he partly accepted the appeal and maintained the conviction but the sentence was reduced from two years to one year Rigorous Imprisonment without disturbing the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under:- 3. On 11.4.1975. the Station House Officer, Hanumangarh received information that some smugglers are staying at Bhalainath ka Dera, the Station House Officer went to the said Dera where three person were found with Opium weighing in quantity 1 Kg. and the same was seized. Out of which 30 gms of opium has been separately taken as sample and the accused persons were arrested. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused petitioner for the offence under section 4/9 of the Opium Act. 4. The Trial Magistrate after considering five prosecution witnesses, two defence witnesses and the relevant record, convicted the accused petitioner with the sentence of two years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo four months Simple Imprisonment. 5. In appeal, the convict on and sentence was ordered as indicated above, which has been challenged in this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner Mr. J. R. Chaudhary submitted that finding of the two courts blow are against the law and material on record; as such the conviction of the accused petitioner is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor- Mr. V. S. Chaudhary submitted that there is a concurrent finding on facts; as such no interference is called for. 8. I have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the cate carefully. 9. The conviction of the accused is based on the sole testimony of the Station House Officer Ram Dayal (PW. 4), who has no where stated that the Opium was recovered from the petitioner. On the other hand, Laxman Singh (PW. 2 has stated that the opium was not recovered from the accused petitioner but the same was recovered from the place nearby. Admittedly, on 11-4-1975, the opium was recovered and seized The sample was sent for chemical examination on 17-4-1975 Roopa Ram (PW. On the other hand, Laxman Singh (PW. 2 has stated that the opium was not recovered from the accused petitioner but the same was recovered from the place nearby. Admittedly, on 11-4-1975, the opium was recovered and seized The sample was sent for chemical examination on 17-4-1975 Roopa Ram (PW. 3) stated that he has taken the sample on 17.4.1975. the seal was intact and he obtained its receipt. Ram Dayal (PW. 4) has stated that the sample which was contained in a Match b x was kept in Malkhana during four days. Kashi Ram PW. 5) has stated that the sample was put in a Match stick box. It is clear from the record that the recovery of opium was nor made from the accused. The prosecution has not produced the concerned persons. in whose possession the sample remained for the intervening period. There is no evidence which shows that the sample was kept in the proper custody, nor there is any evidence which can show that it was properly sealed and further the prosecution has failed to prove that the sample which was handed over to the Chemical Analyst is the same one. 10. The another important point for consideration is that on perusal of the Chemical Analyst dated 27-2-1976 (Ex. P. 6), it reveals that the opium article received by him, which was of dark brown colour substance kept in a Cigarette Case and it was found that its weight was 35 gms alongwith the inner flap of the Cigarette Case. It contains 2.51% of Morphia. From the report (Ex. P. 6), it is clear that the Chemical Analyst received 35 gms. of opium sample. Whereas, according to the statements of Laxman Singh (Pw. 2) and Ram Dayal (PW. 4) only 30 gms sample was taken and was kept in a Match-box as per statement of Kashi Ram (PW. 5). This material fact has not been explained by the prosecution that how 30 gms. of opium sample was increased to 35 gms. The prosecution has also not been able to explain this important fact that how the sample which was kept and sealed in a match-stick-box, when received for chemical examination was found in a Cigarette Case. Therefore, the accused-petitioner is entitled to get benefit of doubt of such discrepancies and his conviction cannot be sustained in eye of law, on the basis of material on record. Therefore, the accused-petitioner is entitled to get benefit of doubt of such discrepancies and his conviction cannot be sustained in eye of law, on the basis of material on record. 11. Looking to the above facts, it is clear that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Both the courts below have wrongly come to the conclusion and committed illegality in convicting the accused petitioner on the basis of the above facts. 12. In the result, the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner Rati Ram is allowed. The conviction under section 4/9 of the Opium Act and sentence pissed against the accuse d petitioner is set aside. The sentence of fine is also set aside and be refunded to the petitioner, if deposited. The petitioner Rati Ram is hereby acquitted for the charge levelled against him. The petitioner is on bail, so, he need not surrender to his bail bonds.Revision allowed. *******